When exactly do you stop being a newbie? That definition can change the way people see that statement too. Someone could of skilled into a **** fit capable of grinding a L4 in 5 hours while knowing not much about the game so he would still be a newbie or not?

If you look at the link I provided, it shows that high sec (with somehting like 70% of EVE's population) has less than 1/7th the ship deaths of Null sec (11% of EVE's population).

This is vastly and imo biasedly misapplied.

In null sec most get out to pew pew and a portion does PvE, some do industry.

In hi sec many trade, do low grade industry, transport stuff to-from hubs with regular ships (no JFs) and so on.

To have a faithful representation you should only compare the PvP active subset of population in both realms.

As of now a tiny minority of high seccers are PvP active, I am actually surprised hi sec has 1/7 of the kills and not 1/30.

What high sec does, in a fairly balanced way, is to actually allow people to be non PVP active if they apply some sound practices (mainly: don't make yourself a target).

Because only you make yourself a target, high sec is as dangerous as null sec. Go around in a blinged 30B marauder or a 10B load freigther and see how long you last in this ~safe~ high sec.

Everyone who undocks is "pvp active". Those numbers are correct and shows that high sev is very safe.

No, I don't intend "PvP active" as "PVP flagged" (which in EvE everyone is).

I intend PvP active as "inclined or even actively intentioned to PVP".

Hi sec is where those less inclined to PvP live.

You might hate them, but so far there's no EULA paragraph forbidding paying a sub to run some craptastic PvE content (I don't understand why anyone bothers with EvE PvE either, but hey, that's *freedom* of choice so I respect it).

So you have to separate the number of kills from the amount of people, because having an huge amount of people who does not want to actively engage in PvP is certainly going to reduce the amount of killed ships. I mean, even if hi sec had no Concord but a majority just don't want to club each other, the numbers will still remain so distant vs a place where people explicitly goes to for PVP.


Sure I understand your burning desire to remove those players any freedom and impose your alliance strong hand on hi sec as well.

But that's very low class, your higher in rank have understood it since a long time and are succesfully applying proper domination in hi sec in the form of markets manipulation.

Those officers of yours deserve respect, they "got it" how to dominate with a stiletto instead of a spiky club.

Are youkidding? We LOVE these people. Their utter lack of pvp awareness in a pvp focused game makes our lives so much easier.

Well if you LOVE them, don't spam threadnoughts about nerfing them out of existence.

I don't really care about EvE turning into a pure PvP game (I greatly enjoy them) but I do respect people who want to play their own "shade" of virtual life in a less demanding setting.

Leave them be and keep killing them.

Trading is balanced due to the fact that you need to invest tens of billions to make billions.

Income via shooting rats should be balanced like exploration is.
And you can also lose billions. For confirmation of this, go ask all those people who left buy orders for mining mindlinks active at the old price earlier this week.

We are starting none of these threads however we will not stand by while people demand tbat we be nerfed yet again because they refuse to take any steps to protect themselves.

As for mission income, we simply ask that null and low offer more reward for the higher risk we face. We want to live in null but so long as high sec offers the same or higher reward we find its just not worth it.

You don't face higher risk. You have local chat. You can warp away at the first sight of a neutral. You deserve nothing more than what you have.

You don't face higher risk. You have local chat. You can warp away at the first sight of a neutral. You deserve nothing more than what you have.

You don't face higher risk. You have local chat. You can warp away at the first sight of a neutral. You deserve nothing more than what you have.

Anytime you're ready to head back to high sec and partake in this exploitation of wealth generation you claim exists please come and do so.

Hisec is safer than null security and that's working as intended. The level of safety is subjective.

Concord doesn't stop ships from being blown up to the degree you imply. It does raise the requirements more than null ill grant you.

But high sec also lacks the ability to use Capitals and such that nullsec has so i'm not sure if our hull limitations can be ignored when determining safety.

I use no alts, nor do I troll in the manner you suggest.

We dont use capitals to rat. Only the foolish do that. Incidently, you can out damage a carrier with some of the subcap fits used in high sec missions.

Which sub capital out tanks a titan?

Or are you implying ehp has zero to do with safety and that sub capitals tank just as well?

Then you don't need access to a ship that's not useful. Since carriers damage is also subpar to sub-capitals in lucrative isk making opportunities I submit we get rid of all capital ships and bring EVE to having just sub-capitals.

I doubt i'll have a nullsec constituency for that though.

Because they provide no benefit to your isk making activities and do not enhance your nullsec safety?

No, its actually quite ingenious. It forces the opposition to consider how to defend being able to use more resilient ships while claiming others safer.




Ingenious
1 - clever, original, and inventive.

We are starting none of these threads however we will not stand by while people demand tbat we be nerfed yet again because they refuse to take any steps to protect themselves.

As for mission income, we simply ask that null and low offer more reward for the higher risk we face. We want to live in null but so long as high sec offers the same or higher reward we find its just not worth it.

Ah, by reading the "Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3?" I thought this was not exactly the thread where nerfs are called on you.

Imo EvE is more or less fine as is and actually they overnerfed miners ganking. The "dynamically spawn anoms" mechanic, as I said several times in the past, HAS impacted more the gankers than their targets.

Well this is a new level of stupid from you.